Bob wrote:
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 22:48, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
Besides, I'm really surprised to see an IESG person say
"hey, the future
of the Internet is really up to the Big Four, they can lead
and the rest
of us can follow."
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:06:37PM -0500, Steve Bellovin wrote:
(Note that although I'm a member of the IESG, I'm speaking as an
individual. I'm not even saying how I'd vote if this document were
to come before the IESG today -- IESG evaluations are a deliberative
process, and I could very easily be talked out of some or all of
my points.)
It is not unusual for the IESG to take account of the fact that there are
commercial interests with a major influence on the Internet. Unfortunately
it has a habbit of only recognising them when they represent an excuse for
inaction.
It is very common to hear 'we can't do X because of the difficulty of
getting Y to adopt' where X (= { IPSec, DNSsec, IPv6, ...}
What is less common is, 'we should propose a standard way to do X because Y
is very keen to do it quickly.'
What appears to never be said is 'We should modify X as follows to meet the
objections of Y'.
The reason that DNSSEC was not deployed two years ago is that a clique of
IETF insiders decided to resist modifications to the spec to make it
deployable in dotCOM. Steve was a participant in that clique.
It is not about the good of the net, it is all about personal exercise of
power.
Phill
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡